Posted on 05/27/2011 6:34:47 PM PDT by Greysard
"Black box recordings from Air France Flight 447, which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean two years ago, revealed new details about the plane’s final moments. But the report did not assign blame or give an explanation for the crash, which killed all 228 people aboard."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“it appears that the co-pilots of the AF447 failed to recognize the stall and flew the vehicle into the ocean.
_____________________________________
Well, in a stall, they did not fly the plane into the ocean.
It fell into the ocean.
What I do not understand is why they ignored the stall, instead of pushing the stick forward to regain airspeed.
Really, honest to gosh.
Play dumb again, and ask me what caused the crash. No... wait. It should be my turn.
I’ll play dumb and ask.
What caused the crash?
On the other hand, a cement boat will float. And it won’t burn.
The WHY thread was a joke, as was my copy of one of its questions, capiche?
Anyway, do you believe it was the pilots error, or bugs in the software? (There is no software without bugs, though I admit, I’ve attempted to write it myself.)
So it had a trajectory much like a child trying to throw a bowling ball?
Stall warning sounds, ADI shows 14* nose up, crew trims stab more nose up and places engines at idle ... brainless
Two heads/ears/eyes/sets of hands are usually better than one.
Amazing. It's as if nobody in the cockpit knew how to manually fly the aircraft.
my hubby is a pilot-he has a theory about this. He referenced a “pito” sensor. Possibly malfunctioned. If it malfunctioned it would give the pilots a false airspeed indication without necessarily giving a fault indication. Its the same as if you are driving down the interstate and your speedometer malfunctions. Except in a plane you can’t tell how fast you are going. He thinks that the plane was going slower than what they thought and consequently stalled because the computer on the plane “thought” it was going faster than it was. And it continued to go slower and slower until the stall warning was activated and then the autopilot is deactivated. Consequently, now the pilots find themselves in a stall with airspeed indications that are inaccurate. He also mentioned that it would be in France’s best interest to not cast blame on the plane itself since they have a financial interest in it’s success. Sooooo, blame the pilot. Always, especially if the pilot is already dead, blame the pilot.
Just his two cents worth......
The crew included two co-pilots and one captain. Both chairs were occupied by co-pilots; the captain, when he awoke and came to the cockpit, just stood behind them, as I understand.
Static sourses telling crew the ship is falling.. -10k’ fpm vertical speed and altimeter in death spin but hey, lets not notice.
“An orange painted box called a black box by our government. Go figure”
_________________________________
Probably because, if they have to find and open the box, it is
going to be a very BLACK event, and day.
Si certo. It is why I tried to joke back. Sorry it was so lame. (see my tagline)
Anyway, do you believe it was the pilots error, or bugs in the software?
I don't think I have enough information to make a skilled assessment.
My partially informed opinion is that it was a combination of many, many factors.
This was not a crash with a single attributable cause. One of the most important factors, to me, would be whether there was one or both crew in the cockpit. In a situation like this, it might require both to have dealt with the chaos and confusion.
Only if one of them has enough command status to take control of the overall situation. Of course, that might have been part of the problem ... until the black box information is released to the public this will be a mystery. And even with the deciphering of the black box information, we may never know.
Always remember, first officers are just as qualified to fly the plane as the captain. The first officer (or were there two first officers?) were in the cockpit-they have to be “type rated” in the plane just as the captain. He just doesn’t have “the label” as captain. Just something to consider.....
Here is an example a little easier to relate to.
And... btw, it’s spelled ‘pitot tube’.
Remember that show where people do crazy stunts? They would have a person be blindfolded and drive, with a passenger giving them instructions on how to drive. The object was to drive the car up onto the ramp of a trailer, that was being pulled along at an even speed.
Now imagine that you blindfold the passenger.
That is why being up at high altitude, in the dark, and having your gauges go funky is like.
That was the early theory, last year. The latest data shows a controlled descent. The airplane was pointed nose up, at a very high pitch (35 degrees?) and as result only a fraction of the engines' power was used to generate forward motion (that creates lift.) Most of the power was used to hold the airplane in the air, like a rocket... and you can do it only in a powerful military airplane, and only for very short time.
So the airliner was on a controlled (though unwanted) descent right to the moment it touched water. The next report, with more data and probably with simulations, is expected in July.
What I do not understand is why they ignored the stall, instead of pushing the stick forward to regain airspeed.
The stall warning system malfunctioned because of wrong airspeed. There were two warnings, but I have no idea which of them were true and which weren't. This is something only the investigators can tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.